Rocky Marciano vs Evander Holyfield

Holyfield supposedly did lose weight inbetween fights and had to work hard to get back on.

I remember hearing this all the way back in the early 90s.

 

This applies to every sucessful Champion to some degree.

 

Evander wins

And beats the overrated Marciano

 

Pastor and Conn were extending Louis in his career not to mention Tommy Farr - and Walcott himself (IMO beat Louis)? Even Godoy went the route with Louis?

Was Charles not a better fighter than all of these guys? Could he not have been capable of improving on what those guys did? Who of the contenders in Joe Louis' era was as good or better than Charles & Walcott? Both would've been exactly what they were in the own era - amongst the very best in the world and potential title holders at some point during and same can be said in respect of the Liston/Clay era also - who in that era was good or better fighters than prime Charles & Walcott?? If you can find any better fighters in either era then I think we need to start reassessing a damn lot of fighters?

PS regards the size Holy was really vastly different - as a pro his lightest weight was 176 and he had 5 fights where he weighed at or below 180?

He had a further 6 fights we he weighed at or below 185? 3 fights at or below 187? 4 below 190?

Even when he moved up to heavy he weighed 202 for Tillis, 205 for Riddick Bowe, 207 for Rodrigues, 208 in 3 title fights, 209 for Mercer and 210 for times? Size would be NO ISSUE AT ALL? Non at all WHATSOEVER?

 

Yeah, except for the ones who fought in strong eras.

 

Just reread the notes on Holy's prep for Tyson II. Yes, he increased weight... from 210 to 218. So, it's not like he was walking around at 173 and put on 45 pounds. He put on 8 whole pounds....

I can tell you that he for sure looked like a real heavy between fights, not a Klitschko but definitely a heavyweight.

 

Even the ones in the alleged strong eras like Louis, Ali, Holyfield, and Lewis. They all reached their apex as the former men of the division declined.

 

I'm not entirely sure I understand this pattern of ending every sentence with a question mark, when a period would suffice just fine, but if that suits your writing style then so be it. Yes, for his first 18 fights and while basically being in his early 20's Evander Holyfield's weight was below 200 lbs, yet was still roughly the same size as a lot of classic heavyweights. For the bulk of his career however, he was over 200 and solid muscle. Hence no matter how we cut it, his heavyweight physique made him a larger man than Marciano.

 

With the primary difference being that most of them fought prime contemporary opponents at some point in their careers.

 

Charles did beat prime contemporary HW peers in Maxim, Walcott, Baski, Oma, and Valentino.

 

Sorry I was alluding to Marciano, but then realized I made a blanket comment about everyone at the time. Nevertheless, I don't think that most people view the late forties to early fifties as an especially strong era in the sport. It wasn't the weakest by any means, but not exactly a stand out period for heavyweight boxing.

 

Walcott and Moore despite being older men when they hit their stride beat much younger HW fighters who would be considered their contemporaries.

 

I think it is an underrated era. World War II and Louis' decreasing activity, led to a bottleneck of experienced strong contenders that Charles and Walcott cleaned out effectively.

 

But did this group of men comprise a strong era? Well maybe. I do kinda like Elmer Ray.

 

In the case of Walcott you had the Black Murder Row strong holds: Murray, Bivins, Rey, Oma, and Sheppard. Bivins and Rey were maybe on the decline but still formiable. Mix in some tough sluggers like Gomez and Baski, and two fellow all time greats in Maxim and Charles I think you have a case for a strong grouping of fighters.

Moore's journey to the Marciano title fight: Satterfield, Bivins, Henry, Baker, Valdez, and Johnson is a pretty tough run. Bivins was on the decline but still going strong.